Yes, that range of anecdotal evidence. In this situation, how is that useful? Are people going to be tested at birth and constantly monitored even though people like zacpassman believe that environment is critical to the situation? I'm not at all sure anymore where you are going with this.

Finding out a cause doesn't mean we need to go anywhere, but a cure should be a good thing. I’m not sure why yourself and others are worried that these people would be expunged before or after birth, for all the movies warning about these futuristic societies that will eliminate the sick, people with defects that wouldn’t have survived birth much less early childhood are living rich and fruitful lives in these modern times.

I just said I was leaning towards a Genetic reason for these human defects, it sounds good, the research is leaning that way. I see new design and technique roll outs all the time, sometimes you see or hear about something and you just know its right, which is how I feel about the genetic research I have seen on this subject. I have always been known for having a good eye, my stats are solid, I’m calling this one…we will see...

I can fight too, if ya want to throw insults around but otherwise, don't make it personal. I don't get on yer shit for all your misuse of the language which I'll tell ya what: I still won't get into that... so while I certainly know the definition of expunged, even if I didn't I don't need you to tell me I'm getting sidetracked easily after I've spent a good deal of time trying to get you to understand science, which despite the fact that you've learned a thing or two, you have a very slim grasp of.So, you've said some shit, I've said some shit, lets leave it at that cuz overall I don't hate ya fellow forum member, but I'm not into taking shit from people, at least not without flinging some back.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

We would also expect to see some who have the markers but do not exhibit the effects, this is best seen with disease and infection, we call these people immune, and immunity has always existed in nature…these things you say are making the point.

Very flimsy. How is it "best" seen? What's the connection between immunity and how a genotype develops into a phenotype? Are you seriously saying here that those without the problem but with the markers somehow prove the involvement of the markers in the problem because of some flimsy parallel with immunity? Immunity is really something quite different.

Edit: Whoops, got something back to front.

_________________The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.

Last edited by polydigm on Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I can fight too, if ya want to throw insults around but otherwise, don't make it personal. I don't get on yer shit for all your misuse of the language which I'll tell ya what: I still won't get into that... so while I certainly know the definition of expunged, even if I didn't I don't need you to tell me I'm getting sidetracked easily after I've spent a good deal of time trying to get you to understand science, which despite the fact that you've learned a thing or two, you have a very slim grasp of.So, you've said some shit, I've said some shit, lets leave it at that cuz overall I don't hate ya fellow forum member, but I'm not into taking shit from people, at least not without flinging some back.

Yay! Monkey fights!

_________________“The power of pop music to corrupt and putrify the minds of world youth are virtually limitless."

[8-13-11] what the f#ck is wrong with you people...I don't care how modern or unrepressed you are,that shit is wrong![8-21-11] You are trying to rationalize the indefensible, it will never work[8-23-11] makes me think how many times has he actually done this...he will never change[9-13-11] doesn't take a rocket scientist to add this up and this knucklehead has been caught at least twice that we know of...[9-13-11] the assumption that he has done this more than the times he was caught is almost 100% certain ... [9-13-11] I wonder if there is a link between Moons meltdown and some ungodly act in the past that Roy committed[9-17-11] I'm sorry but we have a lot of pieces here that don't look good and he is twice convicted...so that is a given, but to say that speculation into the possibilty[9-18-11] dude do you even know what your saying...

Quote:

dc: Whatever Roy did, he should be judged on facts, not hearsay ... but I don't see any strong connection to Roy's case

poly: Plook, your speculation is way out of line.

======================

plook wrote:

[2-27-12] this is one of those rare situations were a muliple offender is most likely guilty since they can't change this behavior, its the way they are...[3-05-12] please refrain from commenting... shame on you, this is an un-defendable position…[3-05-12] and people who engage in this type of activity are mentally depraved and have never been known to change[3-10 12] he left that zip code a long time ago….[3-13-12] I said it before and I will say it again "Indefensable[3-15-12] Dude your smoking crack, you sound like those idiots

[3-16-12] I think you all are missing the point ... There are certain criminal behaviors ... which leads me to a possible genetic link[3-16-12] starting at a very young age with a perversion to harming small animals [3-16-12] they usually have committed so many more crimes than what are known, it is obvious[3-16-12] I'm pretty well read on this subject, [3-16-12] These people are un-defendable

[3-17-12] I am really astounded at how little some of my fellow forum members understand [3-17-12] They almost all start young and usually it includes animal abuse that behavior so deep seated[3-17-12] You people really need to get educated[3-17-12] Plane and simple these are violent acts [3-17-12] but the ignorance on this subject has caught me off guard.

[3-19-12] Let's not forget what Gail once said about Roy, ... With his conviction you can see that statement in a whole new light[3-20-12] this type of offender starts young and is normally not caught for years and has committed these crimes many times before caught...[3-20-12] How old are you Downer, you don't seem to have any perspective[3-21-12] we know he has committed the crime far more than he has been caught, there are no mitigating circumstances.[3-21-12] but I guess you all need me around to keep your head out of the sand on this subject, how is it you people have no knowledge of this subject ?

dc wrote:

I do think Plook's reply to cyst-array was moronic, but have to admit that my following generalization was ill-advised. Sorry about that.

... need more information about the nature of Roy's crime before labelling him as the worst of worst

thanks for that, dc, a voice of reason & balance, same with rk, downer, buffalo, poly and others ... there are no facts on any of these events beyond public records, pretty slim; everything else is pure speculation

plook is out of control on this thread; wild speculation, rumor-mongering, ill-informed google-based 'research' , trendmonger-like personal attacks, trendomongerish repetitive non-responses, actually thinking bold font gives his mindless typo-ridden grammatically-butchered pomposity any additional weight or relevance, repetitive weak speculation that added nothing to this topic beyond a couple of posts in september of last year; give it fucking rest

rk : If I were to try to come up with a rationale for why any given age should be required for consent, I'd have a very difficult time trying to pinpoint it. Older than 12? Sure. Younger than 22? Of course. What age in between there though is difficult to make an argument for. What is the criteria? ...

age of consentyoungest: age 12 in vatican state; age 13 in five other countries ... some exceptions as jpd noted oldest: age 20 in tunesiastate of texas: age 1726 u.s. states: age 16illegal for travelling u.s. citizens to have sex in another country with anyone under age 16

I'll come right out and say that I think Plook is a Kook (what with the crack smoking smiley and all) but we are talking a difference in age of at least 50 years. I will not pardon him. He should have known better.

I was asked by Plook to give some input on the genetic behaviour determination issue. This a very muddy terrain, since most genetic research is done by manipulation, say as controlling mating patterns or knocking down genes on a test subject and that's obviously out of limits with human beings. In the case of humans we must rely on other techniques such as Twin studies (when identical twins are raised separately, because each twin pair member has exactly the same "genetic content" as the other)...

That is not to say there ain't reasoning over the broader issue of genetic determination with the famous Nature-Nurture debate. I have touched on this subject elsewhere, but it is never enough to outline the theory underpinnings:

Phenotype = The manifestation of any given trait: colour of the eye's iris or any anatomical feature, your stature, weight, any specific biochemical characteristic, health predispositions, constitution or a behavioural trait (say pedophile sexual behaviour), psychiatric, emotional capacity and cognition. All the living being's characteristics...

Genotype = The genetic content of each individual. That is to say, the single unique combination of genes that only you posses (when compared at the individual genomic scale - genome means the whole set of genes of an organism), but also what could be understood as genetic states that some of us among the human population can can share in common, differing from other individuals (genetic variation) in one single gene. Example, Some of us are Type O blood, so regarding that genetic locus (=gene) all people who have in common being Type O blood would have the same genotype (at least with simplistic assumptions) at that locus. Genotypes can be modernly accessed through molecular markers such as variations in DNA sequence that we can determine in lab tests.

Environment=The place, specific conditions, constraints, stimulation, stochastic fluctuations and set of events that take place during one's development and life history. For example you could have raised on a very starving nation with poor diet and energy intake throughout childhood, have been committed by a serious parasite that made you ill, you could have been educated in music since you were three, you you could have broken your leg causing one to be shorter that the other and etc... In this case a clear example of environment would be, say, the sexual offender having been exposed to sexual abuse himself during his childhood...

So any phenotype (characteristic) can be understood under the simple conceptual model:

What factor, G or E or GE will be determinant, or if they will all have equal shares of influence over one's characteristic often depends and varies widely with the trait under scrutiny. Example: no matter what environment you were raised in, you will always retain your blood type phenotype. I will always be type O no matter if I was raised in the tundra or Managua... Other conditions will be highly sensitive to the environment: if you eat too much you will gain weight eventually, no matter at what rate... Other undergo complex interaction: you might have a genetic predisposition to accumulate fat at a faster rate that the average. Then you eat too much and get fat. This leads to a mild depression that is counteracted with more eating of caloric and endorphin related treats such as chocolate, which eventually leads to more fat, and more depression on a feedback basis.

The geneticist's goal is to unravel the causations of each phenotype trait, which can be complex because many traits of interest can be influenced by many different genes and many different environmental sources of influence.

One important question to be considered is whether any genetic variation can account for the phenotype variation, which means you have to control for the environmental sources of variation. Such systems are yet poorly understood in human beings.

Ultraorthodox Genetic Determinism is part of the agenda of trans-humanism (former eugenicists) and has been under fire lately, because of other layers of complexity, such as gene interaction and epigenetic control of gene expression/function. For instance, genetic test for the allele for the predisposition to breast cancer has been under criticism, because it was often associated with the radical measure of recommending mastectomy (to remove the breast before any tumour can manifest there) and it seems to be later shown that not necessarily having the genotype in question would mean 100% chance of developing disease. The problem is that living being are genetic mosaics of fractal layer complexity and if you screens and select someone for for a particular genetic variation, you are not taking into account all the rest of its genetic composition.

In the case of sexual behaviour both certainly play important determinant roles on shaping one's phenotype (sexual hormones, certain uncover genetic variation, environment conditions, media, accepted/taboos, community, laws, family, history) and so do complex interaction with those G and E variables...

I can fight too, if ya want to throw insults around but otherwise, don't make it personal. I don't get on yer shit for all your misuse of the language which I'll tell ya what: I still won't get into that... so while I certainly know the definition of expunged, even if I didn't I don't need you to tell me I'm getting sidetracked easily after I've spent a good deal of time trying to get you to understand science, which despite the fact that you've learned a thing or two, you have a very slim grasp of.So, you've said some shit, I've said some shit, lets leave it at that cuz overall I don't hate ya fellow forum member, but I'm not into taking shit from people, at least not without flinging some back.

No problem my friend, I am still confused by the reaction to "expung", but we can leave it at that...

We would also expect to see some who have the markers but do not exhibit the effects, this is best seen with disease and infection, we call these people immune, and immunity has always existed in nature…these things you say are making the point.

Very flimsy. How is it "best" seen? What's the connection between immunity and how a genotype develops into a phenotype? Are you seriously saying here that those without the problem but with the markers somehow prove the involvement of the markers in the problem because of some flimsy parallel with immunity? Immunity is really something quite different.

Edit: Whoops, got something back to front.

I was making an analogy, I stand by it, the fact that a genetic predisposing does not bring on an expected condition does bare some similarity or analogy to immunity…

Really Slime, your going to take all those out of context lines and tag & bag me...I don't think so...what is it with the obsession of a bunch old farts wanting it to be acceptable to have sex with girls under 18 years of age...

We would also expect to see some who have the markers but do not exhibit the effects, this is best seen with disease and infection, we call these people immune, and immunity has always existed in nature…these things you say are making the point.

Very flimsy. How is it "best" seen? What's the connection between immunity and how a genotype develops into a phenotype? Are you seriously saying here that those without the problem but with the markers somehow prove the involvement of the markers in the problem because of some flimsy parallel with immunity? Immunity is really something quite different.

I was making an analogy, I stand by it, the fact that a genetic predisposing does not bring on an expected condition does bare some similarity or analogy to immunity…

I was speaking as someone who has a science degree and trying to point out that your analogy is actually wrong. You dabble in science which seems correct to start with and then you fizzle out into pure conjecture. I'm pretty sure that's Arkay's point as well, the one you've been dancing around for quite some time now.

I'm not big noting here, but I do have some qualified experience with science and I can't stay quiet when I see someone dealing in pseudo science. It's potentially quite dangerous.

Plook wrote:

Really Slime, your going to take all those out of context lines and tag & bag me...I don't think so...what is it with the obsession of a bunch old farts wanting it to be acceptable to have sex with girls under 18 years of age...

I think you need to list who the fuck it is you think is saying that.

I'm not saying that. I have two problems here.

(1) Misuse and abuse of science.

(2) Lynch mob mentality.

_________________The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.

• Someone who carries a gene that can cause a propensity to a condition but does not develop it and • Someone who is immune to something they have.

Then you are just unable to connect the dots…and after all it is just a valid analogy not scientific declaration, pseudo or otherwise, and least of all dangerous.

And arkays point seems to be everything from; 1. He isn’t sure a crime was committed depending on who’s laws you look at. to 2. If it was genetic and identifiable that somehow society would want to march on the castle like the towns people in Frankenstein. to3. He seems to be making a case for anything goes sexually with young girls if they seem to be consenting and of some arbitrarily acceptable age (nasty).

As to your first final point, there is no misuse of science, since scientist are working on research in these vary areas, whether you and Arkay believe they are competent you would have to challenge the researchers themselves to prove that, not merely go after some guy on a forum who is pointing it out. Never kill the messenger.

Your second final point is a knee jerk reaction since I never said that if we identified these people early through genetics we should lynch them, I said the opposite that then we may be able to help them. Once they commit these heinous crimes all bets are off.

I sense that those of you who have tried to attack me for pointing out the obvious are upset because you were caught trying to defend the undependable. I would really like to set you all down in front of some victims and watch you squirm trying sympathize with and defend that behavior, I think you all would fold up like a cheap lawn chair.

Please don't attempt to make my case for me, I'm capable of doing so on my own. If you have a problem with poly's statements, I'm sure he's well capable of taking them up. If you were correct about my opinions I still wouldn't approve, but you have made assumptions about my opinions that are incorrect and have therefore made your statements the worse for it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

Point one: I get your analogy Plook, it's quite obvious, but not the point. Quite simply , scientifically you cannot compare disease immunity with whether or not a gene manifests. A gene not manifesting cannot be explained away by a tenuous comparison with disease immunity. I'm trying to tell you that I've been trained in science and you cannot do that in science. Quite simply, in science you can't explain away anomalies with analogies. If a particular gene really is connected with a particular behaviour characteristic then you are going to have to scientifically explain the anomalies with a concrete demonstrable mechanism. Otherwise, your peers will laugh you out of the seminar along with your reputation.

Point two: You made a broad claim about people here being perverted old farts and you should qualify just exactly who it is you're referring to.

_________________The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.

Point one: I get your analogy Plook, it's quite obvious, but not the point. Quite simply , scientifically you cannot compare disease immunity with whether or not a gene manifests. A gene not manifesting cannot be explained away by a tenuous comparison with disease immunity. I'm trying to tell you that I've been trained in science and you cannot do that in science. Quite simply, in science you can't explain away anomalies with analogies. If a particular gene really is connected with a particular behaviour characteristic then you are going to have to scientifically explain the anomalies with a concrete demonstrable mechanism. Otherwise, your peers will laugh you out of the seminar along with your reputation.

Point two: You made a broad claim about people here being perverted old farts and you should qualify just exactly who it is you're referring to.

Ok sounds like we are not to far apart here, I am not explaining away, just saying there is a similarity in that not everyone that has something gets it.

On the old farts thing it was a catch all for those who have been arguing that age of consent as if that somehow mitigates a violent crime, if you are not part of that surprisingly large and vocal group I apologize, for some reason my position against violent criminals has received flake from all over and I am shooting from the hip here to keep up...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum